Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I must say I've felt really touched by Liz's visit to Ireland. Many here will slate the Monarchy and normally I'd be one of them. But this 85 year old lady has such great dignity and awareness that I believe she has had a profound influence of Anglo Irish relations. Somehow she has done something no strutting politician could ever have done. The English are no longer the auld enemy, but neighbours, and good one's at that. Somehow it feels like a line has been drawn in the sand. Thanks to her.


Bless you Lizzie!

PS Don't you just love Phil too?

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/17397-elizabeth-in-ireland/
Share on other sites

Nice opening post Mr. Medic. Very nice indeed.


What touched me was that, she appeared (to me anyway) pleased to be amongst the people of Ireland - as though glad of the opportunity to finally bury a rusty old hatchet. It looked to me as though this wasn't just another of her royal engagments, but that she actually wanted to be there. She looked enormously sincere and happy, and as a result so did the majority of the locals.


A beautiful sight to behold if ever I saw one.

Hunca you may well be correct in your first sentence. The solving of the Irish issue is a different thing.


In your second sentence you refer to yourself in the third person. I am no expert on grammer or spelling in any language so correct me if I am wrong. What da fuck are u sayin?


Edited to add 'or spelling'

Frankly I find the 'Irish Issue' dull and stupid.


Do these people in high density housing shooting each other in the knees for peddling temazepam reaaly think their lives are going to get any better because their welfare payments are coming from slightly closer?


No they don't. What they think is that the departure of social structures will leave them with a vacuum that they can populate with their own brand of tyranny.


They manipulate stupid and ideological people alike in the pursuit of that goal.

Ireland is a successful modern nation.


It has no more problems with genetic heritage, immigration or borders than anyone else does.


The Irish are richer than most, travel the world freely, capitalise on their cultural heritage and live more fulfilling and self-determining lives than most of the 6 billion people in the world.


There is no Irish 'issue'. Everything is bloody brilliant for the Irish.


Except that is for people who want to capitalise on history to pursue an agenda that only has a downside: it cannot make the Irish more successful than they are, it can only create a power vacuum to be populated by violence and tyranny.


The premise of that 'issue' is that some people 'own' something based on their bloodlines, that you can visit the sins of the parents upon the children. It's f*cking stupid, doesn't stand up under even the weakest scrutiny, and has no place in a modern world.

Because other people keep bringing it up and it's exasperating.


Particularly exasperating are the righteous, sanctimonius rich people who were never involved, have never been impacted by any 'Irish issue', have never done anything but benefit from being Irish, and have to enter into some tortuous exploration of their social network to find some weak justification for a bit of fist-pumping nationalism.


One of the most famous internet portals has over 40m people registered on the network who have their nationality registered as 'Irish'.


How annoying is that? They're clearly not - they've gained all the social benefits and opportunities that have been gifted them by another nation, and they're rude and ungracious enough to claim to be from somewhere else.


They probably don't even have an 'Irish' culture. They have something that was made up to print on the back of exported whiskey.


There's only 3.8 million people in Ireland. There's more people live in the West Midlands, and they don't have 'West Midlands' pubs all over the world, despite Burton producing some very fine ales.


As I said - pretty exasperating if the "Irish" diaspora start bringing up the 'Irish issue'. WTF would they know?

Aha - there you go proving my point ;-)


Why does it matter, unless you plan to drag up the behaviour and activites of other people to give yourself an identity or a grudge?


It's an habit I don't value in any society; the activities and behaviour of other British, London or ED people past or present don't define me. Neither, despite Quids insistence, does my choice of newspaper.


Mind you, at least we don't have an 'ED Issue' as an excuse to inflict violence or control over others or campaign for ethnic and racial cleansing.


Get out there and be yourself.

Not trying to be antagonistic.


There is no antagonism in saying how successful Ireland is, and there is no antagonism in being disparaging of people who use history as an excuse to commit murderous crime. There is nothing antagonistic in pointing out that an awful lot of people claim Irish citizenship who couldn't possibly be Irish.


And it certainly isn't antagonistic to say that constant references to the 'Irish Issue' are exasperating.


That's the part of the issue about the 'Issue' huncamunca - people start spraying around violent terminology like 'antagonism' on behalf of other people.


Just like you did.

"Cheap joke though unless you have some weird definition of success."


That's just another example of the completely inappropriate sense of grievance the Irish claim. They're not hard done by at all.


The last figures I've got for GDP per capita puts Ireland at $37,700 and UK at $32,800. That's post crash. That means everyone else suffered too!!!


You're all doing fine.


Yeah, Ireland needed a bailout, but that's essentially because the government lacked the will of leverage to enact sensible financial controls.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...